Competitive Advantage Logics

  • Chandra S. Mishra


Why do some firms pick superior resources, opportunities, or activity systems? The answer lies in our entrepreneurial logic in that the competitive advantage lies in the firm’s value creation and appropriation mechanism that is enhanced by entrepreneurial incentives. The extant strategic logics are contrasted with our entrepreneurial logic. The resource-based views assume that the firm always delivers superior performance when a strategic resource is present. The positioning view assumes that managers will always recognize and act on attractive strategic positions in a timely manner, and configure superior value activities that provide the firm competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial incentives induce the entrepreneurial behavior that empowers managers to overcome traditional behavioral bounds and enhance the firm’s learning, adaptation, agility, and cognition. The entrepreneurial behavior of a firm meets the conditions of the source of competitive advantage, namely, scarcity, imperfect imitability, and imperfect mobility. It is not the firm’s strategic resources or strategic position per se but the entrepreneurial incentives that provide the executives a powerful motivation to earn an entrepreneurial surplus, which enhances their execution of the business model mechanism and provides the firm competitive advantage.


Competitive Advantage Entrepreneurial Orientation Dynamic Capability Management Logic Entrepreneurial Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney, J.B. 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 41–54.Google Scholar
  3. Cyert, R.M., and March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Diericks, I., and Cool K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenhardt, K., and Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gavetti, G. 2012. Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science, 23: 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gavetti, G., and Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gavetti, G., Greve, H.R., Levinthal, D.A., and Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghemawat, P. 1991. Commitment: The dynamic of strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grinyer, P.H., Mayes, D., and McKiernan, P. 1988. Sharpbenders: The secrets of unleashing corporate potential. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Hambrick, D., and Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.Google Scholar
  12. Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C.K. 1994. Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, July-August, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Hatsopoulos, G.N. 1995. How can big companies keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive? Harvard Business Review, November-December, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Holt, C.P. 1995. How can big companies keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive? Harvard Business Review, November-December, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kirzner, I.M. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 60–85.Google Scholar
  16. Lippman, S., and Rumelt, R. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13: 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDonald, G., and Ryall, M.D. 2004. How do value creation and competition determine whether a firm appropriates value? Management Science, 50: 1319–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra, C.S. 2015. Getting funded: Proof-of-concept, due diligence, risk and reward. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Penrose, E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter, M. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December, Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rumelt, R.P. 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In competitive strategic management, 556–570, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Sachs, W.M., and Meditz, M.L. 1979. A concept of active adaptation. Human Relations, 32: 1081–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Teece, D.J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandra S. Mishra
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations